CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

…ar 2009-10 which is reproduced as under: 28.2.4 I have considered the appellant’s submissions. Here the additional ground filed by the appellant is considered in view of decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (2012) 349 ITR 336. In the above case, it is clearly held that if the facts are verified by the AO, this legal claim may be considered in the appellant’s case. Regarding this issue the appellant had not submitted any facts and quantified the amount which falls under this category and what is the amount received by the appellant and this amount was neither verified…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

…ar 2009-10 which is reproduced as under: 28.2.4 I have considered the appellant’s submissions. Here the additional ground filed by the appellant is considered in view of decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (2012) 349 ITR 336. In the above case, it is clearly held that if the facts are verified by the AO, this legal claim may be considered in the appellant’s case. Regarding this issue the appellant had not submitted any facts and quantified the amount which falls under this category and what is the amount received by the appellant and this amount was neither verified…

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

…Y. 2013-14. The revised computation of total income was filed before the ld. Assessing Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 Officer in view of judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom). 11.1 Ld. Assessing Officer asked the assessee to show cause why the disallowance should not be invoked as per provision of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. Assessee submitted its reply, however, ld. Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D to compute disallowance at Rs 4,92,91,746/- and ma…

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

…Y. 2013-14. The revised computation of total income was filed before the ld. Assessing Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 Officer in view of judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom). 11.1 Ld. Assessing Officer asked the assessee to show cause why the disallowance should not be invoked as per provision of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. Assessee submitted its reply, however, ld. Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D to compute disallowance at Rs 4,92,91,746/- and ma…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, THANE, WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE WEST vs. M M PLASTOWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, THANE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of M M Plastoware India Private Income Tax, Circle-1, Thane Limited Gala No. 10-15, Arihant Darshan, Vs. 90 Feet Road, Bhayander West, Thane – 101101. (Pan: Aahcm2568D) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 120/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M M Plastoware India Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited Tax, Circle-1, Thane Gala No. 10-15, Arihant Darshan, 90 Feet Road, Vs. Bhayander West, Thane – 101101. (Pan: Aahcm2568D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Lalit Munoyat, Ca Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal:

…on of law arising from the facts already on record, even if such a question was not raised before the lower authorities or included in the original grounds of appeal. 4.2. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom), wherein it was held whether an assessee can make an additional claim of deduction through a letter during assessment proceedings without filing a revised return, and whether the appellate authorities have jurisdiction to entertain such claims and other decisions, which categorically hold that correction of errors or recomputation of existi…

INGLORIOUS FILMS LLP,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21 Inglorious Films Llp, Income Tax Officer, Unit No.301, 3Rd Floor, Crescent Wrqh C23, Maharshi Karve Royale, Veera Desai Road, Off Rd., New Marine Lines, Vs. New Link Road, Oshiwara, Aayakar Bhawan, Andheri – West, Mumbai – Churchgate, Mumbai – 400053. 400020. Pan –Aaffi0742Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Mr. Aamod Prabhudesai, Ca Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.08.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Challenged The Rectification Order Dated 07.03.2023 Under Section 154 Of The Act By Filing First Appeal Before The Ld. Commissioner Claiming Deduction On Donation Of Rs.5,00,000/- Under Section 80(G) Of The Act. The Ld. Commissioner Dismissed The Said Appeal By Considering The Peculiar Facts & Circumstances, Specific To The Effect That The Assessee 2 Inglorious Films Llp Cannot Claim Any Deduction (Herein Deduction Under Section 80(G) Of The Act) At The Appellate Stage, When The Same Has Not Been Claimed In The Original Return Of Income, Without Revising Itr Within Stipulated Time & Therefore, He Is Constrained Not To Allow This Claim Of Deduction At This Stage.

…m qua deduction under Section 80(G) of the Act. The Assessee’s Counsel somehow relied on various judgments including in the cases of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 338 (SC) and CIT Vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bombay High Court) and claimed that the Assessee can make fresh claims before the appellate authorities, even otherwise by way of filing original or revised return of income. Fresh claims also include cases, where the ground though available, when the return was filed or the assessment order was made, was not taken or raised by that point of tim…

SHREE KUTCHI LAL RAMESHWAR ASHRAM AND ANNAKSHETRA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. EXEM. WARD 2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshree Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Vs. Income Exem. Ward 2(3), Ashram & Annakshetra Trust Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 35/1028, Shyadri Chsl, Maharishi Karve Road, Dattmandir Road, Pant Nagar, Mumbai-400020. Ghatkpar East, Mumbai-400075. Pan/Gir No:Aaatk0199C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “H(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shree Kutchi Lal Rameshwar vs. Income Exem. Ward 2(3), Ashram and Annakshetra Trust Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 35/1028, Shyadri CHSL, Maharishi Karve Road, DattMandir Road, Pant Nagar, Mumbai-400020. Ghatkpar East, Mumbai-400075. PAN/GIR No:AAATK0199C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri KiritSheth Respondent by Shri PravinSalunkhe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM: Th…

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

…303 ITR 256), as well as on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT as on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in as on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (349 ITR 336), v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (349 ITR 336) v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (349 ITR 336) wherein it has been held that an assessee is entitled to raise wherein it has been held that an assessee is entitled to raise wherein it has been held that an assessee is entitled to raise additional claims before app additional c…

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

…303 ITR 256), as well as on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT as on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in as on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (349 ITR 336), v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (349 ITR 336) v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (349 ITR 336) wherein it has been held that an assessee is entitled to raise wherein it has been held that an assessee is entitled to raise wherein it has been held that an assessee is entitled to raise additional claims before app additional c…

M/S. RALLIS INDIA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

…he same was not claimed merely due to inadvertence and oversight. The Appellant places reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Siva Equipment P Lid v. ACIT (423 ITR 20) and in the case of CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt Ltd (349 ITR 336), wherein, inter alia, the jurisdictional High Court has held that the Ld. CIT(A) has the powers to adjudicate fresh claims in the appellate proceedings even when the said claims were not raised by way of a revised return or during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the Appellant requests your Honour to please direct the Ld. AO to a…

M/S. RALLIS INDIA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

…he same was not claimed merely due to inadvertence and oversight. The Appellant places reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Siva Equipment P Lid v. ACIT (423 ITR 20) and in the case of CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt Ltd (349 ITR 336), wherein, inter alia, the jurisdictional High Court has held that the Ld. CIT(A) has the powers to adjudicate fresh claims in the appellate proceedings even when the said claims were not raised by way of a revised return or during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the Appellant requests your Honour to please direct the Ld. AO to a…

M/S SAPPHIRE FINTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankarm/S. Sapphire Fintech Private Limited 6Th Floor-1, Plot 165, 161/169 Hirachand Fulchand Trust Building, Perin Nariman Street, Fort, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400001 Pan: Aahcs0312H V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3(3)(1), ……………… Respondent Room No.609, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai, Mumbai – 400020

…th sides and perused the material available on record, at the outset, it is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd. (supra) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom), have held that the appellate authority can entertain a fresh claim made by the assessee. We find that similar findings have been rendered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2017) 396 ITR 251 (Mad.). Therefore, we are of the considered view that the learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the…